Testing construct validity of verbal versus numerical measures of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation
AbstractThe numerical certainty scale (NCS) and polychotomous choice (PC) methods are two widely used techniques for measuring preference uncertainty in contingent valuation (CV) studies. The NCS follows a numerical scale and the PC is based on a verbal scale. This paper presents results of two experiments that use these preference uncertainty measurement techniques. The first experiment was designed to compare and contrast the uncertainty scores obtained from the NCS and the PC method. The second experiment was conducted to test a preference uncertainty measurement scale which combines verbal expressions with numerical and graphical interpretations: a composite certainty scale (CCS). The construct validity of the certainty scores obtained from these three techniques was tested by estimating three separate ordered probit regression models. The results of the study can be summarized in three key findings. First, the PC method generates a higher proportion of ‘Yes’ responses than the conventional dichotomous choice elicitation format. Second, the CCS method generates a significantly higher proportion of certain responses than the NCS and the PC methods. Finally, the NCS method performs poorly in terms of construct validity. We conclude that, overall, the verbal measures perform better than the numerical measure. Furthermore, the CCS method is promising in measuring preference uncertainty in CV studies. However, further empirical applications are required to develop a better understanding of its strengths and the weaknesses.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University in its series Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports with number 0946.
Date of creation: Jan 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Crawford Building, Lennox Crossing, Building #132, Canberra ACT 0200
Phone: +61 2 6125 4705
Fax: +61 2 6125 5448
Web page: https://crawford.anu.edu.au/research_units/eerh/
More information through EDIRC
Preference uncertainty; contingent valuation; numerical certainty scale; polychotomous choice method; composite certainty scale; climate change; Australia;
Other versions of this item:
- Akter, Sonia & Bennett, Jeffrey W., 2010. "Testing construct validity of verbal versus numerical measures of preference uncertainty in contingent valuation," Research Reports 94942, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
- Q51 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Valuation of Environmental Effects
- Q54 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Climate; Natural Disasters
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-06-26 (All new papers)
- NEP-DCM-2010-06-26 (Discrete Choice Models)
- NEP-ECM-2010-06-26 (Econometrics)
- NEP-UPT-2010-06-26 (Utility Models & Prospect Theory)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Akter, Sonia & Brouwer, Roy & Brander, Luke & van Beukering, Pieter, 2009. "Respondent uncertainty in a contingent market for carbon offsets," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1858-1863, April.
- Alberini, Anna & Boyle, Kevin & Welsh, Michael, 2003. "Analysis of contingent valuation data with multiple bids and response options allowing respondents to express uncertainty," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 40-62, January.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Crawford Webmaster).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.